I'm still feeling around in the half-light for the question I want my dissertation to answer. Eileen Munro's article on for CPAG on whether or not tracking can benefit childrne from impoverished families gives me some ideas, but doesn't set me on a track that feels right. One option is to look at this somewhat philosophically, and try to answer the question, "If so many experts say that the only real widespread solution to helping children in poverty is to reduce poverty, why does the government (or governments) focus so much effort on fighting the symptoms of poverty rather than the root cause? What roles do key liberal ideas play - eg the idea that citizens are consumers, and if we just give citizens in general and the poor in particular enough information, they will make the right choices?
One thing I don't want to do is go down the "analysing child protection services" route. I'm certainly much more interested in how parenting practices differ by class, than in the actual mechanisms of dealing with problems.
One possible question would be: "We are constantly told that education is the key to success as an adult. Poor people are presumably told this over and over. To what extent do they (as a big broad general group) believe this. Why don't more impoverished parents push their children harder in education? What are the differences between those who do and those who don't? Eg Indian families and poor white Brits. Where is the gap between the liberal idea that if presented with information people will take advantage of it, and the reality? Or is it primarily a lack of quality services - ie if there were better schools and academic resources for the poor, would they do better, and is that what we should be trying to fix?"
In both of the above scenarios, I'm interested in whether or not government is pulling the right levers or the wrong ones, and if the latter, why? Ideology?
Or I could go back to risk and perceptions of risk. It would certainly be funner to do something on risk in play, against the risks of not playing so freely. If I do something on risk and its perceptions, the key questions to investigate would be regarding why we perceive their to be more risk nowadays. (Or does "we" only refer to middle class parents?) Certainly there are a variety of reasons - is there anything positive that parents get out of assuming exaggerated amounts of risk?
Another possibility along these lines would be children and play, though to the best of my knowledge, things such as getting rid of recess only happen in teh US, and I don't want to do something exclusively on my former home.
Whatever I do, I'll choose something fun.
